Every year in September, the heads of state and government of all countries around the world gather in New York to open the UN General Assembly session with their speeches. The highest body of the world organization also passes a further series of resolutions that diplomats from dozens of countries have been working intensively on over the past few months. Every year, resolutions on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are also adopted, which can count on a clear majority and the rejection of a handful of states, led by the US and Israel.
Criticism of Israel at the UN is allegedly an expression of anti-Semitism
Israel has long rejected almost every UN decision that affects it in any way as anti-Israel and, as it often adds, anti-Semitic. In doing so, it can count on the support of the US. Often, it is not the text itself that is most interesting, but the question of who voted how. How large a majority were the initiators able to win over? How many states were the US and Israel able to prevent from supporting the resolution?
When the General Assembly called last week for a peaceful solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and recognition of the Palestinian state, the majority was even more overwhelming than in previous years. Of the 193 member states, 142 voted in favor, ten were against, twelve abstained, and the rest did not participate. The vote showed Israel's increasing isolation under the influence of events in Gaza, but also the internal division of both the BRICS countries and Europe, including Central Europe.
From the outset, the resolution was drafted in such a way as to secure the largest possible majority, both in terms of content and its initiators. It was based on a joint initiative by France and Saudi Arabia. It is aimed at different parts of the world: France at Europe and some of the French-speaking states, Saudi Arabia at the Arabs and the Global South.
The pro-Israel resolution was balanced in terms of content
In terms of content, it was as balanced as possible: it called for peaceful coexistence between Israelis and Palestinians, condemned the attacks by Hamas, ruled out its participation in the administration of Palestine, demanded the release of hostages, but also supported the Palestinian government, condemned the Israeli massacres, and called for the recognition of the Palestinian state.
The support of almost three-quarters of the world's states, including almost all EU and BRICS states, reflected this. In contrast, the Americans and Israelis were not very successful, managing to prevent only twenty states from supporting the resolution.
For reasons other than those of the US and Israel, Iran, Iraq, and Tunisia, for example, rejected the resolution just as decisively and did not participate in the vote at all. They considered it too pro-Israeli, and some disliked the condemnation of Hamas, which they regard as a national liberation movement.
It should be added that the official Palestinian representatives welcomed the resolution and that states that did not want to take a position on this issue, such as Georgia, Bhutan, and Madagascar, did not participate in the vote.
Various forms and reasons for rejecting the resolution
Twelve states neither rejected nor supported the text. They took part in the vote but abstained. Arithmetically, this is the same as a rejection, as they do not contribute to the majority required for adoption, but diplomatically, abstention is seen as a more constructive stance than rejection. They reject the resolution but do not want their rejection to be perceived as a hard no.
Among the most important are the Democratic Republic of Congo, which today needs US mediation for peace with neighboring Rwanda, and Ethiopia, which has had special relations with Israel since the legend of the romance between the Queen of Sheba and Solomon, through Ethiopian Jews and Ethiopian coffee in Israel, to Israeli weapons in Ethiopia.
As can be seen, the BRICS countries did not speak with one voice. Iran did not take part in the vote, Ethiopia abstained, and the others were in favor. The situation was similar in the EU, which, unlike the BRICS countries, tries to coordinate the votes of its members. The resolution was supported by all member states except Hungary and Czechia.
Hungary rejected it, along with Israel, the US, Argentina, and six smaller non-European states. The Czech Republic abstained, as did Albania, Moldova, and North Macedonia, which are preparing to join the EU.
Central Europe: maximum diversity in a minimum of space
The vote confirmed Milan Kundera's remark that Central Europe offers maximum diversity in a minimum of space. Among the four Visegrad states, we find three different positions. Poland and Slovakia, with their long-standing positions on Palestine, followed the majority in Brussels and supported the resolution. There is nothing surprising about their vote. More interesting is the case of the Czech Republic and Hungary.
It is not surprising that they did not support the resolution. Both countries have long profiled themselves as allies of Israel. Czech support is based on strong pro-Israel positions that cut across the political spectrum. Hungarian support comes from Orbán and reflects the support of a significant portion of European national conservatives for Israel. The Czechs were even slightly more consistent in their support than the Hungarians.
When the General Assembly called on Israel last year to end its illegal occupation of Palestinian territories, Czechia and Hungary were the only EU countries to vote against it. Poland and Slovakia abstained (as did Germany, Austria, and Italy).
A year earlier, the General Assembly had called for a humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza in two resolutions: in October, it was the Czechs, Hungarians, and Austrians who opposed the EU states; in December, it was only the Czechs and Austrians, while Slovakia and Hungary abstained and Poland even supported the resolution. The Visegrad states have long held different positions on Palestine, and no one in the EU is more pro-Israel than the governments in Prague.
Prague has lost its pro-Israel primacy
Last week, Budapest took this primacy away from Prague. Two influential orientations clashed in Prague. Foreign Minister Lipavský, a pro-Brussels progressive, has taken pro-Palestinian positions in his past as a Pirate. If it were up to him, he would probably support the resolution.
However, the more influential player is the prime minister's national security adviser, Pojar, a former ambassador to Israel and a bearer of Israeli and American influence, who would certainly have preferred to reject the resolution. This stance would probably have prevailed if President Pavel had not already been taking a more critical stance toward Israel for some time. The result was an abstention as a middle ground between support and rejection.
However, this is not a U-turn, as Czech diplomats immediately assured Israel that they would reject anti-Israel sanctions in Brussels. If there is ever to be a U-turn, it will not be because of the apparent contradiction between the loudly proclaimed human rights policy and the reality of the Israeli massacres in Gaza, because everyone in Prague has already become accustomed to that.
The only thing that could convince the “value-oriented” Czechs would be a change in the US's stance. With Trump, this is not to be feared for the time being, but some of his supporters are losing patience with Israel. Then there could be a tectonic shift that will also be felt in Prague.